Talk:Portrait of an African Man

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Portrait of an African Man article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Portrait of an African Man appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 February 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Portrait of an African Man (pictured) is the first portrait of a black man in European painting and might depict an archer, nobleman, Saint Maurice or Zwarte Piet?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Portrait of an African Man.

Wikipedia

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Netherlands

	Netherlands portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
	A Netherlands Did you know article.

"Balthazar" precedes this man in Western art

The article asserts " it portrays the only black man in early modern European painting in an independent way" Is "an independemt way" a wiggle to exclude representations of the Three Kings? "Balthazar's blackness has been the subject of considerable recent scholarly attention; in art it is found mostly in northern Europe, beginning from the 12th century, and becoming very common in the north by the 15th" (Wikipedia Three Kings). --Wetman (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood the sources "in an independent way" means that the portraited person is the only one present on the painting. Crispulop (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to comment that the word "independent" was less than clear. I wondered if it meant the subject was free and of some societal status, as opposed to being portrayed as a savage or slave. I guesss some alternate form of words might be considered Rob Burbidge (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:African man portrait Mostaert.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:African man portrait Mostaert.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 1, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-02-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Portrait of an African Man is a painting by the Netherlandish Renaissance painter Jan Mostaert from between c. 1520 and 1530. The exact subject of the painting has long been unclear. Suggestions include that the subject is Christophle le More (Christopher the Moor), a black archer at the court of Emperor Charles V, or Saint Maurice, who was typically portrayed as black. If it is a portrait of a specific real individual, it appears to be the earliest known portrait of a black man in European painting.Painting: Jan Mostaert

Archive – More featured pictures...

Gallery

I don't think it makes sense that there is at the end of the article, 4 gallery pictures of various depictions of Saint Maurice. Especially because the link to Saint Maurice is slightly dubious. Personally the assertions to me sound like a very unlikely way to paint a saint. Would it be best to remove the four pictures of Saint Maurice, which can simply be viewed looking at the Saint Maurice article? They do not even have an introduction. Anyway I will not remove them myself, I do not think I will ever get away with it if the one who put it there decides to edit war75.73.150.255 (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too true (that you would not get away with removing them). Whether or not the Mostaert is intended to be St Maurice, these are clearly other comparable depiction of black men at this period, and should remain, not least to prevent people claiming that this is the earliest such depiction, which it is not. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with the suggestion that it does not make a lot of sense to have some seemingly randomly four images at the end of the article, without any further explanation. It leaves one guessing why they are there. Especially since St Maurice is just one of several possibilities of the depicted person. Crispulop (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The further explanation is the last para of "subject". But if it is puzzling those who don't read the text I will look at it. Johnbod (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, certainly an improvement. Crispulop (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor who added the pictures, and the dubious claim that he was a saint is practicing white supremacy. If a black Africa in the 1500 was educated and wealthy looking, it destroys the narrative of black being only savages and fit for slavery, which is common in western education. So the editor wants to portray him as being a fake figure representing an old mythical roman saint, not a living Black African. most people don't read much, so have the pictures will allow the lazy to justifiy thier claim, that He doesn't represent a Savage 15th century African, but only a old Roman saint myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:4101:5D00:21F4:294:B3DE:116D (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]